Democrats & Liberals: Archives

“We must respect the other fellow’s religion, but only in the sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart. “

H.L. Mencken

Besides things like yelling fire in a theater or incitement to violence, you should be able to say whatever you want. Other have a right not to listen or to criticize and shun you. I oppose all hate speech codes (and most campus speech codes) and anything with the force of coercion that limits free speech.

Government should not impose prayer in school, but also should not prevent anyone from praying in any place where normal speech is allowed.

And of course you have no rigth to “proactive” speech. Nobody should be prevented from speaking (with the exceptions above) but we have no obligation to facilitate anyone’s speech.

These days restrictions on speech are more likely to come from the left than from the right. Conservatives are fighting speech codes and PC formulations every day.

These days restrictions on speech are more likely to come from the left than from the right. Conservatives are fighting speech codes and PC formulations every day.

Jack,

I am solidly on the left when it comes to social issues, but if what you say is true (?) then I say keep up the good work. I believe very strongly in individual rights to freedom of speech.

I caught some of that and seeing Rushdie again was quite a flashback.

What I walked away with from it is the insanity of religiosity itself. That such firm religious mandates as killing Rushdie still stand today. THe same way the Catholics still contained such conviction for centuries that jews killed Jesus.

Why in these specials on Islam, whether it be Moyers or another just admit to ourselves, despite the PC workshop, that Islam is just plain wacko, violent and a threat to human morality itself. I think if most people would shut-up about the Quran until they actually read it we’d get closer to these above talking points. That Islam is nuts!

I can hardly tolerate fundamentalist Christians as I do hope the find this rapture and get off channel 28 but that’s merely an irritation to their pomposity. But Islam itself is genuinely dark brutal stuff, it allows the brutalization of women, Clitoral mutilation, beheadings of infidels, murder in the name of its God—not to mention the insanity of 72 virgins. Islam is the world’s most violent bloodthirsty religion ever formed by the very essense of its writings and the very deeds of it’s religious leader/religious mass-murderer/tyrannical dictator, Mohammad himself.

The Israelis and their policies have this one right in Israel, this religion is bloodthirsty by nature and bent on nothing short of total conquest and domination even at the very safety of it’s own adherents to this faith. As much as I abhor the brutality upon an impoverished minority such as the Palestinians the very quest by which they act is about power and domination and nothing else.

Some get it—some don’t, I’d love to see peace with it at some point but the whole religion is about death, Death to the jew, Death to the west, death to the non-believer, Death to any muslims should they be sacrificed for the sake of their own domination of the region or of the earth itself.

What does such a religion offer the common good of humankind but a death threat by which they can rule by intimidation?

WE can tell ourselves we are fighting insurgents or Al Qaida in Iraq—the truth is we are fighting Islam and the interpretations it offers it’s followers of its own relationship with a concept of the divine. Only through education will it change in that part of the world—real education not three patrs Islam one part other carricula.

Yeah I’m gonna’ need a prescription for Zoloft or something after this post.

Well, I’m for free speech too, but if I find someone reading Barry Goldwater at the top of his lungs underneath my bedroom window at three in the morning, I reserve the right to throw a bucket of water on him.

Jack?

What are they praying about at school they can’t pray about at the bus stop? It’s not liberals or the left that is inhibiting this at all. It is the very rules of being in a workplace. A workplaaaace, both a democratic and Republican bastion equally. Knock off the liberals are taking away our speech tripe—yer’ killin’ me.

Islam is the world�€™s most violent bloodthirsty religion ever formed by the very essense of its writings and the very deeds of it�€™s religious leader/religious mass-murderer/tyrannical dictator, Mohammad himself.

Novenge,

I am not really that familiar with the Quran, but I can’t believe that it can be that much more violent than the Old Testement, where infants were ordered dashed to pieces by Jehovah and people were ordered to be killed for collecting firewood on the sabbath (among other silly crimes).

I don’t know enough about Salman Rushdie to comment on him, and I don’t know or really care which came first. I do agree with you about religious freedom of speech however. No one can stop me from praying no matter where I am because my prayers are between me and my God.

Novenge

If the workplace or anywhere else allows people to speak in general, if people can talk to themselves and others w/o getting in trouble, there should be no reason to bother them about prayer. I am not treating it any better, but I see no reason to treat it any worse.

Paul,

This is a tough one. Speech and religion combined. It’s kind of a brain buster. But, then again it shouldn’t be.

Here in the states it’s not required of anyone to say any prayer that I know of. I’m 54 years old and I don’t recall anyone ever holding my feet to the fire to get me to say nothing.

OTOH one of the foster homes I grew up in made me kind of uneasy just because I didn’t understand their rituals, but the parents in that family were understanding enough to explain what they were doing without trying to change my beliefs.

I think I’d question any religion that required someone outside their belief to follow a certain set of standards. The truth is tough but I’ve never seen that in my personal life other than from a Muslim famiy in Omaha.

Outside of that I’ve found simply bowing my head in respect is enough. I’ve never had anyone try and force me to say words I didn’t want to say. I’d hope no one ever did.

KansasDem

I don’t have a problem with people praying at work as long as they are not being disruptive.

I do have one question for the Christians in our audience, though. Christians seem to be outspoken in their support for public prayer. How do you reconcile that with Matthew 6:5: “And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full.”

“Here in the states it�€™s not required of anyone to say any prayer that I know of.”

Oops, I lied. I served as a “professional witness” at many criminal proceedings and I always found it odd that they’d have an agnostic (me) swear on a bible. So, I swore to ……. so help me god a lot with no belief, but I was always truthful never the less.

I still find that “non-discriminatory” because it doesn’t specify what “god” you profess to. OTOH since they have you hold your hand on the Bible I guess I may have violated the law.

Don’t tell anybody. I’ll keep it a secret if you will.

KansasDem

KansasDem,

I remember in school, there were always 1 or 2 kids who were from Jehovah Witness families. Their religious beliefs did not allow them to say the pledge of allegiance. While they were not made to say it, they were singled out and I am sure did not feel comfortable while everyone else said the pledge, everyone kinda looking over at them. Some teachers would even make them stand up and explain why they would not say the pledge. They were the only students made to explain their religious beliefs to the class.

I’m not sure this was a violation of anybody�€™s freedom of speech, but I certainly think it is wrong to make students feel that they must participate in such an exercise.

Jack? Can you pray while you work? I mean it is on the company’s dime. You can mop a floor and talk to Jesus right? The other thing is must it be such a big to-do? You know with the arms outstretched or forming a prayer circle and reciting verses outloud. Is that the only way God will listen to people? Might explain why that Ferrari and the lottery win hasn’t come yet.

Jay Jay Snowman,

I think the main difference is also in what it has become over the centuries too. The jews aren’t stoning people for sabbath violations anymore but in Islam it’s just the reverse. I agree religion especially that of the mediteranean and middle eastern variety is quirky to say the least. But Islam is still pretty inhumane and primative in these respects. I think the only cure is a balanced education so they can get beyond these superstitions they are inculcated to believe are the way things should be.

JayJay,

I can understand that. While my daughter was doing active service in the National Guard my oldest grandson lived with me. Now, rememebr I live in 80% Republican country. His mom is Catholic and he’s been raised Catholic and I always made sure he made it to all of his Catholic rituals.

But he was living with me just before the 2004 elections and the school had a “mock” election and from listening to me he was the only one out of something like 80 students in 3 classes to vote for Kerry. He was somewhat devistated. Since his mom was in Kuwait it wasn’t as bad, because she was “in the service” and a “hero”, but I do get what you’re saying.

KansasDem

Good Post and interesting point of view, but Bill Moyers isn’t my idea of an intellectual giant. He was a speechwriter and politially active TV host and narrator. That doesn’t make him an intellectual giant. I like most of his stuff, but that’s stretching it.

Gergle,

Who would be considered an intellectual giant to you? Just out of curiosity. Please don’t say Bush or Cheney or it’s just gonna’ start up again here.

Novenge

It doesn’t bother me if people pray. I would not make special accomadations for religion, but I would not bother people if it is part of what we usually let people do. If a bunch of people can get together to discuss their favorite NGO or saving the whales, they can also talk about Jesus.

As a rational guy, I never felt threatened by any religion. I suspect many of those most offended by prayer are not as rational. They suspect that they may indeed be headed to hell and that is why they get so mad.

I have been cursed by gypsies on dozens of occassions. Because I am certain they have no powers, I don’t care as long as they don’t phyically get in my way. The same goes for witches, vodoo, ghosts, astrology etc. Anybody who believes in these sorts of things is welcome to curse me or stick a doll with my name on it.

If you really don’t believe in it, who cares what they do? And if you are really po’ed by religion, maybe you are afraid they are right.

Jack

I am with you 100% until your last line. Maybe your differentiating between restrictions on free speech and criticism of free speech. As far as criticism of speech goes conservatives(at least those on the religious right) nearly have a corner on the market. They simply cannot let anyone say anything they do not aggree with.

Jay Jay

I’m glad you brought up Matthew 6:5. I am a Christian, That is I believe in the teachings of Jesus Christ, including this one. Prayer should be done privately or in groups of consenting people praying for a common purpose, not by people making a public show of it.

OFF TOPIC-JACK

Why do the gypsies keep cursing you?

As a rational guy, I never felt threatened by any religion. I suspect many of those most offended by prayer are not as rational. They suspect that they may indeed be headed to hell and that is why they get so mad.

Jack,

If I had a dollar for everytime a Christian told me I was going to hell, I would be a rich man. OK, maybe not rich, but I could by a nice lunch.

I think this is really a non-issue when you are talking about adults. However, when you are talking about children, that is when things get sticky. I am absolutly against public prayer in public schools. Children are too impressionable and schools are no place for children to learn about religion. There is a reason there is a church on every street corner.

JayJay

Absolutely correct! My children learn about God in church and Sunday school where I am also present. No way do I want them learning about who knows what brand of religion in schools whether it be through education or prayer.

Jack,

I agree but only on breaks okay? I have no problem with shows of religion personally. The bible thumping I can do without. But they aren’t praying that way out of faith they are praying out of an agenda they have. They want me to be born again and follow their religion so I don’t go to a fiery pit that isn’t even mentioned in the New Testament. And I just want to drink my coffee in peace.

If I talk about atheism in front of them or even evolution, they get insulted by me. So should I be restricted from a discussion of darwinism or how we need to preserve a women’s rights to choose? No I just don’t mention it—see they think we are the only ones who get insulted. If I say there is no God or plead a case for agnosticism or blame them for witchburnings and torturing innocent people they get insulted—should I be restricted???

If not I’ll tell Catholics how Pope Pius avidly supported Nazi-ism then.

I am a Christian, That is I believe in the teachings of Jesus Christ, including this one.

mark,

I too believe in the teachings of Jesus Christ. However, apparently, according to the Christian right, I am not allowed to call myself a Christian because I reject the OT and do not believe in the dogmas and doctrines that Jesus never taught. I think we need to come up with a new name for those that follow the doctrines of man. Maybe, Paulitians? Paulines?

Wait even better yet when they start I’ll tell them that they are in luck because I’m Jesus. That should be an ice breaker.

JayJay

I am no theologian but didn’t Jesus also reject some of the OT such as when he said instead of an eye for an eye to turn the other cheek. Tim Crow where are you?

mark,

He did rebuke some of the OT including an eye for an eye, he said to love your enemies not hate them as in the OT. He worked on the Sabbath, breaking one of the ten commandments. When he recites the commandments he makes no mention of the first four. He also has some harsh words for the Jewish leaders of his time (Matthew 23).

That is from the scriptures that the Church allowed into the Bible. He says much more about who Jehovah, God of the OT, really is in the books that were excluded.

What is it about everyone in here? Have they forgotten what it means to be an individual? Based on what i’ve seen written in here you would think we are nothing but members of a society and that society is imposing their will upon us. It has always been my belief that the founding fathers of this country saw us as individuals making up a society, each responsible for his own decisions and acts.

To say that prayer in schools is imposing one’s beliefs on another can only be foolish and that would include public schools also. If we can restrict prayer, which is the act of talking “freely” to God, then we have given the government the right to restrict our freedom to speak to anyone in regards to any issue or subject.

If in talking freely to God aloud is the imposition of a person’s beliefs upon another who wishes not to pray with them then each of you are trying to impose your political beliefs onto each other. by your standards we should only speak aloud our political beliefs when alone or with those who agree with what we say. For to speak them aloud in mixed company is sure to offend someone. Do we then impose those beliefs on those we offend?

Jay,

How about “followers of Christ-fotainment”?

What the world needs is a new religion that is just about reinforcing love and the common good in all of us and bring about through kindness the common good to people in everyday life, and to search within each of us for that great inner potential and learn to love one another. No wait there’s no money in that—okay everyone wears a spacesuit…

The interface between freedom of speech and freedom of religion is delicate. If a person in a role of authority (eg teacher, boss, or, say, president)makes statements endorsing or espousing a religious belief, the issue of coersion arises.
Children are particularly susceptible, but adults, too can be placed in a very difficult position. When this kind of pressure is placed by an individual or group which has power of position particularly in a government run environment such as a school, the result is in conflict with the concept and practice of freedom of religion.

Since the right to not believe in a religion is part of religious freedom, I have to maintain that any time for prayers or prayers offered in a public setting are innappropriate.

It is also my belief that True Believers of any religion are capable of actions as violent and horrendous as those we have seen from the Islamic fundamentalists. The key is the belief that they alone possess Truth, and that anyone with a different belief is a lesser being, not the identity of the religion, itself.

Well, I�€™m for free speech too, but if I find someone reading Barry Goldwater at the top of his lungs underneath my bedroom window at three in the morning, I reserve the right to throw a bucket of water on him.

Posted by: Tim Crow at June 24, 2006 09:30 PM

I’m liable to throw more than a bucket of water on them. And I don’t care who they’re reading.

No one can stop me from praying no matter where I am because my prayers are between me and my God.

Posted by: Tom D. at June 24, 2006 09:48 PM

I HEAR YOU LOUD AND CLEAR!

JayJay
While I have no problem with public prayer I’m not a big fan of it as such. I’ve been to several events where they’ve had an invocation before the events. These are usually just a general type of thing. I really fail to see the need of them.
But to your question. I don’t try to reconcile Matthew 6:5 with public prayer unless you want to call my praying quietly in a restaurant before eating public prayer. I don’t.
Christ was telling us that our prayers are a private matter between us and God. And I believe that’s the way it should be.
However I see nothing wrong with schools starting the day with a minute or two of silence. If a kid wants to pray, OK. If they want to look out the window, OK. If they want to draw pictures, or do school work, OK. No one is forced to pray and no one leads in a prayer.
To tell the truth I don’t want my grandchildren to be taught how to pray or lead in prayer by someone that I totally disagree with religiously.
Just remember though. As long as there are test in schools. There will be prayer in schools.

If we recognize ourselves as individuals then prayer is only between each of us and God regardless of the setting or even if it is prayer led by someone. The fact it is spoken silently or aloud does not change that.

The only difference is tolerence. In silence, our prayers need only be tolerated by God, spoken aloud requires the tolerence of those around us.

Ron,

How much of a “to-do” is prayer though? “God don’t let me fall down that well”—there I’m done, two seconds. Maybe if they weren’t doing all that sinning God would like them more and thus the prayer could be shorter.

I gotta’ move on this topic is too silly.

Paul: As usual,interesting and well reasoned post. Thanks for mentioning the 10,000 other religions in the world.Judism,Christianity,ans Islam are all thoses patriachal desert religions that always seem to be fighting each other. Something to do with the desert,I imagine. Other religions appear much more fun.

Jack:The notion that most limitations are comming from the left is just silly. Blue nosed conservatives are trying to censor everything they can get their hands on, even the internet.
Speaking of which,I read a nice column today. The columnist wanted to test Chinas censorship so he set up a Chinese website and started spouting political heresy about Tianmin square etc. Most of it got posted. Seems they only have about 10,000 censores. Rough for them to get more because they would have to trust more to read things first. Thought you would like that.

Ron,

Fair enough!

I would probably do more than throw a bucket of water on him too. We have freedom of speech, but sometimes there are consequences to our speech. Go to Downtown Detroit at night and freely use some racial epitaphs. Sure, you are free to do so, but you may not be leaving alive!

JayJay
Now you are on a subject I know well. Wish I had more time this weekend:

|I too believe in the teachings of Jesus Christ. However, apparently, according to the Christian right, I am not allowed to call myself a Christian because I reject the OT and do not believe in the dogmas and doctrines that Jesus never taught.|

There are 4 places that you find the teachings of Christ:Mathew, Mark, Luke, and John in the new testament.

In each one you will find that the majority of his teachings come from the Old Testament. I Will give a few, then encourage you to actually read his teachings to see for yourself:

I will start at the beginning in Matthew:
The second paragraph we have recorded of what he said:(His temptation)
Mat 4:4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.
from Dueteronomy 8:3

3rd thing said:
Mat 4:7 Jesus said unto him, It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.
Deut 6:16

4th thing said:
Mat 4:10 Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.
Deut 6:13

Then we go on to the sermon on the mount (Matt 5-7)
JUST ONE OF A FEW:
Mat 5:27 Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery:
Mat 5:28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.
Exodus20:14;Deut 5:18

Lets skip a few and go to the book of Mark:

Mar 7:6 He answered and said unto them, Well hath Isaiah prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoreth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me.
Mar 7:7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
Isaiah 29:13

Luke?:

Luk 4:18 The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised,
Luk 4:19 To preach the acceptable year of the Lord.
Isaiah 61:1,2

I could go on forever. Christ quoted the Old Testament where ever he went. This isn’t just politics now JayJay. I would encourage you to study yourself and look for truth.

Freedom of speech has not always been seen as important in this country. It has always been tenuious. The phrase,”Yelling fire in a crowded theater…” is from a Supreme court decision that upheld the sedition conviction of Eugene V. Debs, a prominent socialist orator,for opposeing the US entry into WW1. His crime was not his speech. It was that people were listening to him. I suspect there are many that would like to imprison Cindy Sheehan on the same basis. Pretty much ,you can say anything you want so long as not many people listen to you.

Mark

I used to live in E. Europe and there were lots of them on the streets. They often cursed those who did not give them money and/or they would say that they put a curse on you and offer to take it off for a small sum of money. That sort of thing bothered some people. One of my friends even told me that I should be afraid, since these guys were in league with the devil. “The devil is called lots of things, but not stupid. Why would he league up with the likes of these losers,” I told him.

Novenge

You can tell them whatever you want. They might not like you and if depend on them, it might be a bad idea. I don’t care how individuals respond (short of violence) but I don�€™t want to make speech illegal.

And you know that abortion is a type of evolution. Those who abort their babies put fewer children into the next generation. Eventually such people will disappear.

Jack:

“The devil is called lots of things, but not stupid. Why would he league up with the likes of these losers,” I told him.

You’re absolutely right—I wouldn’t. I like my stupidity in higher places. More bang for your buck, if you get my drift.

Mark:

“Tim Crow where are you?”

It’s Saturday nite and I’m where I normally am—in a brothel discussing Nietzche and religious relics of dubious authenticity.

Jack: Your last statement on abortion is again just silly.Beneath you.You and your anti-choice colleages should spend some time in the Philipinines. The Catholic churh is politically very powerful there. Abortion is illegal in the constitution. Birth control is available but hard to get and expensive. Family planning is offically discouraged. Result,a massive population increase. The Philipines went from being the second largest economy in Asia to being one of the poorest countries in the world. Their chief export is people. Their natural resorces are being used at an alarming rate. Abortions still occur. Poisons are easily obtained, butchery is common resulting in untold deaths and mutilations of young women.What was outlawed was safe abortions. Another example of a Religion interfering in what is supposed to be a secular state. Be careful what you wish for.

What is it about religion (organized) and faith (unorganized) that vexes liberals so?

Not long ago, my 6-year old son and a buddy were on the school playground looking at a rainbow. My son’s buddy wondered aloud, “Where do all the colors come from?”

My son said, “God makes them.”

A teacher was nearby and sternly told my son, “You can’t talk about God here!”

My 6-year old wasn’t holding a revival or trying to convert anyone. Was that reaction really necessary?

After hearing the story, my wife and I met with the principal and the teacher. The principal agreed that the teacher overreacted.

However, the teacher was unapologetic.

“This is a public school,” she said. “Religion has no place here.”

“Religion?”, I said. “What religion was my 6-year old son promoting?”

“Talking about God in school violates the US Constitution”, the teacher responded.

“Are you a lawyer as well as a first grade teacher?”, I asked.

“It’s in the Constitution”, she replied.

I asked the principal if the school library had a copy of the US Constitution.

“If so,” I said, “I’d like her to show me where that is written in the Constitution.”

“I don’t think we need to check the library”, the principal said.

“Your right,” I said, “because its not there. It says the Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of religion. Of religion, not from religion. And my son saying that God made the colors in a rainbow does not violate the Constitution no matter where he says it.”

I don’t attend church. But I do believe in God. And, I think the many wonders of nature, including rainbows, prove his existence.

Thats my right in America. And my sons too.

But, to liberals like that teacher on the playground, every vestige of faith must be eradicated.

Why?

What is it about God that scares you so?

JACK,

You got my point, religious folk get insulted as well by words. And they’ll argue back just like the liberals do and protest it in their own way. And not want it in the public square—humans are frought with such petty character foibles and Christians are no exception. But the other point is I don’t jam it down their throats what my beliefs are because of the hastle—they do out of wanting to invite the hastle so they can get in glib soundbites and whatnot and make some sort of conversion after totally pissing me off.

Another point I don’t go up to their door to do it either. Mormons seem to love my place and I have no idea why.

As far as abortion being evolution? Well again conservatives miss the point on what evolution exactly is, but I guess in a round about way—sure. Evolution means that traits are essentially changing not numbers rising or decreasing insignifigantly in circumspect to the whole. If humans got dorsal fins because of it—that’s evolution!

SCOTT,

Question: Hell being a pit of fire isn’t in there is it? With exception to Revelations being that everyone in that book is pretty much screwed anyway.

I’m a firm believer in the freedom of speech.

The Founders felt it was so important that they made this particular freedom the first listed in the Bill of Rights.

Liberals seek to restrict speech on college campuses and censor articles in student newspapers.

Liberals promote “political correctness” in all aspects of life.

Liberals label anything they don’t agree with as “hate speech”.

I love free speech. I’m glad liberals, greens and socialists freely speak on the issues of the day.

The more you explain your ideologies, the more popular conservatism gets. :-)

Right of way,

I hope they yanked yer kid and beat him cuz that is a pretty dumb answer. No, I totally agree, lower grade school teachers are pretty bottom of the fishbowl with the IQ. At six he should know Jesus makes those to convert non-believers.

Novenge,

I don’t know what this has to do with the debate, but oh well:

Question: Hell being a pit of fire isn�€™t in there is it? With exception to Revelations being that everyone in that book is pretty much screwed anyway.

Mat 5:22 But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

Mat 11:23 And thou, Capernaum, which art exalted unto heaven, shalt be brought down to hell: for if the mighty works, which have been done in thee, had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day.

Christ quoted the Old Testament where ever he went.

scott,

It is no suprise that Jesus quoted from the Old Testament, he was a Jewish Rabbi and was well read in the OT. He did quote passages that reflected his message of love, he needed to speak in a way that his followers would understand. However, he also rebukes the portions of the Bible that do not fit into his teachings of Love, or were just plain silly. If God gave those laws to the people, why would Jesus rebuke them?

I do believe that there is some truth in the OT, however there is just some stuff that does not jive with the God of Love that Jesus talked about. When faced with this reality we have to make a decision. We can regard it as the absolute truth and follow blindly, we can assume that parts of the OT are true but somethings were inserted by men with an agenda, or we can conclude that the OT contains the truth and Jehovah is not who he claims to be. I tend to lean towards the 2nd or 3rd.

In fact, there is much evidence that it is the 3rd, based on other religious writings from the time period.

When deciding which parts are talking about the God of Love Jesus refers to and which are Jehovah, we only need to look to thier fruits.

Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them. Matthew 7:16-20

But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. ~Galatians 5: 19-22

The God of Jesus is Love. “He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love.” ~1 john 4:8

We are told what love, therefore what God, is:

Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. Love never fails. 1 Corinthians 13:4-8

There is no fear in love; but perfect love casteth out fear: because fear hath torment. He that feareth is not made perfect in love. ~1 John 4:18

Furthermore, we are told that God is Light:

This is the message we have heard from him and declare to you: God is light; in him there is no darkness at all. ~1 John 1:5

Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning. ~James 1:17

Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God. ~Matthew 5:9

Contrast that with what the OT tells us about Jehovah:

“Do not worship any other god, for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God.” ~Exodus 34:14

And the people stood afar off, and Moses drew near unto the thick darkness where God was.

Woe unto you that desire the day of Jehovah! to what end is it for you? the day of Jehovah is darkness, and not light. ~Amos 5:18

Other passages describing Jehovah in darkness: 2 Samuel 22:12, Deuteronomy 5:22-23, Isaiah 45:3, Psalm 97:2, Jeremiah 13:16, Psalm 18:19, 2 Samuel 22:10, Ezekiel 32:8, Zophaniah 1:14-15

Jehovah is a man of war: Jehovah is his name. ~Exodus 15:3

The acts of the sinful nature are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. Galatians 5: 19-22

Look what Jesus says to a group of Jews about their father:

Ye do the deeds of your father. Then said they to him, We be not born of fornication; we have one Father, even God.

Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me. Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word. Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it. ~John 8:41-44

And when his disciples James and John saw this, they said, Lord, wilt thou that we command fire to come down from heaven, and consume them, even as Elias did? But he turned, and rebuked them, and said, Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of. For the Son of man is not come to destroy men’s lives, but to save them. And they went to another village. ~Luke 9:54-55

Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them:

Samaria shall become desolate; for she hath rebelled against her God: they shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up. ~Hosea 13:16

Obviously Jehovah is not anti-abortion.

Every one that is found shall be thrust through; and every one that is joined unto them shall fall by the sword. Their children also shall be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses shall be spoiled, and their wives ravished. ~Isaiah 13: 15-16

Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones. ~Psalms 137:9

This is just a small sample of the conflicts between Jehovah and the God described by Jesus.

Ye shall know them by their fruits.

Jay Snowman,

Could there be a case to draw a conclusion that the Old Testament not be used based on the fact that it IS CLEARLY NOT the book of the gentile?

It shows all telltale of not being intended to be shared. Christianity makes it correlative if not user friendly but if clear case can be drawn that Jesus used it as theological crosscutting (no pun) then the New Testament should stand as it’s own and separate. The whole question is how strong is the evidence that Jesus used this to just be theological to describe other concepts or was he an itinerant Rabbi of sorts? He was a jew as well established, but was he of the jewish faith or using it merely to analogise?

The second paragraph we have recorded of what he said:(His temptation) Mat 4:4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God

Scott,

Matthew 4 is peculiar in that it is written in such a way to connect Jesus with the OT. I have a few questions about this. If Jesus was God, then how could he be tempted by Satan? That seems like a futile exercise.

Also, Matthew 4 claims that following his baptism Jesus was led by the Spirit into the desert to be tempted by the devil. There he fasts for forty days and forty nights. But in John 1 it says that John the Baptist saw Jesus the day after his baptism. Two of John’s Disciples leave with Jesus and spend the day with him. The day after that Jesus leaves for Galilee. There is no mention of Jesus being tempted by the devil.

Obviously, one of these accounts is wrong.

Novenge,

That was debated by the early Church Fathers. Marcion(1st and 2nd century CE)was a leading advocate for rejecting the OT. He produced a Christian Bible absent the OT as well as removing all references to the OT from the NT. Obviously, that did not go over to well with the other Church leaders.

Hmm. jay jay, here’s one for you by national geographic.called the last gospel of judas. they ascertain that the early translations left this out of the bible.at nationalgeographic.com/lostgospel

—From our distant past until present time, how many people have been killed in the name of Religion. Their are laws now against murder, but does any one believe attitudes have changed towards people of different persuasions and beliefs in today’s world.

you guys crack me up.

Equating “religion” with “faith” is impossible. Religion is a loose term that can describe any ritualized behavior. You can be religously Democrat or religously vegetarian. Faith, on the other hand, is a personal commitment to a higher power, God, Budda, Mohammed, etc…… Speaking about something so important is natural. Your kids and grandkids are extremely important to you, but the woman who chooses not to have children may find your constant bragging offensive. Does that stop you from discussing your family? No. Does that woman have to listen to you? No. If I choose to excercise my right to free speech by praying - quietly or aloud - that is my right. If I have an opportunity to share my belief with another person, that’s allowed - unless the person I’m talking to doesn’t want to hear it - then they can walk away. Are there fanatics? Yes. Do they speak for me? NO. That’s like saying Coulter speaks for all Republicans. A stupid assertion either way.

And for anyone who believes in the “basic morallity” of man - are you nuts? If man were basically moral and ethical, we wouldn’t need laws. Anyone here ever heard of “original sin”? It’s not just a religious concept. Don’t believe me? Put a cookie in front of a 2 year old and then tell him not to eat it - THEN walk away. That cookie will be gone in no time. That’s stealing. Not moral or ethical. Those traits are learned and society punishes breeches in moral behavior. Children are proof that rule of law is learned and that humans are basically greedy, selfish and self-serving - I don’t care how cute they are. My sons LEARNED the rules as I taught them, with the help of God and Faith.

For those of you who are sick of being told you’re going to hell……stop hanging out with people of faith. It’s not a condemnation - we’re trying to warn you. We’re speaking the truth as we know it.

Now, I’m off to church for a bit of ritualized worship with people of like faith. God bless.

Back to the free speech aspect, prayer in school and children—-I was a child of the ‘50’s and in our school a teacher began asking us to say the Lord’s prayer in school(common practice at the time) as well as the pledge. He then began subltly to talk about communism and how some adults were giving “aid to the enemy” and how to recognize it. It was very very subtle and many of the kids in the class got very hooked on this idea because he made it sound like we were all detectives and patriotic and turned it almost into a game. (I was in the 5th grade). Students began looking for signs from adults in their lives that they were communist and then the teacher gave out brochures and lists from teh house of unamerican activities. About this time, some of us who were a little aware of things, started sharing this information (whom the teacher told us not to, in the name of the “detective like game” we were playing with him) to our parents. Being in a fairly liberal/Jewish community, our parents got together immediately with the principal and the guy way fired right away and all the kids in school given talks about McCarthy and what was going on with the house of unamerican activities. ALl this to say, I agree, children are very very vulnerable. In elementary school they can be very frightened into beleiving that bad things will happen to them or their parents if they don’t beleive a certain way or do a certain thing.

judye,

My youngest son was in a program called “Model UN”, kind of a debate team that took up issues facing the UN. Each student was a delegate and each school was assigned a country to represent. They had to argue based on the culture, religous leanings and political structure of that country. The teacher was a registered Democrat with intensely liberal ideologies. We are conservative and for the most part, lean towards a Republican point of view. My son started spouting liberal mantras that were verbatum from this teacher. Now this is in 2003. And High School. Teachers have always had a strong influance on kids. The parents’ job is to be viligant and involved in every aspect of a child’s education. This teacher was very good, but his introduction of his personal views, led to his dismissal. Was he a good teacher? Yes. Was he entitled to free speech? Yes. Did he have the right to teach personal beliefs? No. That’s why he was let go. Your post had nothing to do with the topic of religous free speech, but I believe it deserved a response.

judye,

I just reread your post. You did mention the Lord’s Prayer - a Catholic prayer and that you were in a mostly Jewish community. Are you Jewish? Were you required to say the Lord’s prayer? If not, then your freedom of religion was not affected, nor your right of free speech. The teacher was wrong to interject his personal political opinions into the classroom, but it does not appear that your freedom of religion or speech was taken away.

Choosing a faith in the face of uncertainty is fine for those who want to, but remember many of us find it all a bit silly.

BillS

My statement on abortion is silly. It was not meant as a serious argument.

Of course, you may have read in Freakomics that abortion has helped lower the crime rate, since the poor losers who have most abortions would have produced other poor losers, a high percentage of whom would have become criminals.

Abortion is not practiced uniformly. It probably does impact different population groups differently. I am not an absolutist on abortion. Maybe those who have them are doing us all a favor by removing their defective genes from the next generation. Maybe that is intelligent design.

Novenge

Not to attack on a technicality but . . . I think you are actually misstating evolution and (inadvertently I suppose) advocating intelligent design. As I understand it, evolution is a statistical process where particular adaptations come to dominate by a process of slight advantages in particular situations and random chance. The best adaptation doesn�€™t always win out. If a superb individual has no offspring that survive, he is a failure from the evolutionary point of view.

So if people with particular characteristics that are heritable abort all their babies, their characteristics will disappear over time. We also have a kind of social evolution. People pass both their genes and the habits to their kids. To the extent that you eliminate your, you will have less in the next generation.

I think any reasonable, thinking human being understands that evolution has gone beyond theory to become a scientific fact.

The imperial evidence is overwhelming.

The question, then, is evolution an accident or is it being guided by an intelligence?

Many gifted and respected scientists say it is a matter of survival of the fittest. Certain mutations have an advantage and survive where others cannot.

Ergo, over humdreds of millions of years, a simple bacteria evolved into a human being.

But other scientists, just as gifted and respected, look into their microscopes and see an intelligence at work behind the scenes.

Today, scientists are manipulating genetic material and creating new forms of life. It’s called an experiment: Keep what works and discard what doesn’t. In essence, they are guiding the evolutionary process.

Is it not possible that we ourselves may be the product of an experiment, an experiment of unimaginable scale?

Even Einstein left the door open on that question, when he said:

“To me it suffices to wonder at these secrets and to attempt humbly to grasp with my mind a mere image of the lofty structure of all that there is.”

right-of-way:
i completely agree with you on the whole school incident. that teacher was way out of line. religion does not belong in schools, in that it should not be taught or promoted in the classroom by the staff. if children or staff choose to be religious, in any sense of the word, on their spare time or individually, then by all means do.

but, i find your generalizations about liberals insulting. one of the major problems with the media and public perceptions currently is that the extremist elements of both sides are portrayed as the majority of either party and both sides of the political spectrum. MOST of america right now is much more moderate and centrist than most people percieve them to be. liberals decry the far religious reactionary right, believing them to be majority of the republican and conservative party. conservatives are up in arms against the radicals but end up fighting liberals and democrats in general. i am deeply offended by your accusations that it is ‘liberals’ who restrict free speech, label anything different as evil, etc. that is a strategy of BOTH of the extremist elements. ‘politically correct’ is a phrase that has been overused, abused, and entirely changed from its original intent and meaning. but i also find that it is the reactionary faction of the republican party that has been continually restricting my rights since 9/11. yes, there was/is a threat, but the administration is grabbing at power, centralizing that power overmuch around the executive branch, and doing their best to take away ALL americans liberties.

“I love free speech. I�€™m glad liberals, greens and socialists freely speak on the issues of the day.

The more you explain your ideologies, the more popular conservatism gets. :-)”

first of all, socialism as a politcal movement is dead for all practical purposes in the world, and especially here in a first world country like america. you should not be equating socialists with liberals, it is like comparing facists with conservatives. secondly, the popularity of both liberals and conservatives is really a moot point currently because the democratic and republican parties have become, publically, puppets of the extremist elements. like i said, most people in america are moderates, so it is simply a matter of which party puts up a candidate more appealing to the more moderate public. recently my views have been shaken, challenged, and changed for the better. i don’t care if a republican or a democrat wins in the next election, i simply want someone who won’t continue to reactionalize the government or who won’t attempt to radicalize the system.
free speech is ALL we have here in america, it is the basis and foundation of everything else. too much of the public’s time is spent ignoring what those who disagree with them say and pushing aside anything that is not what they want. (michael moore (increasingly as time progresses), anne coulter, and bill o’reilly are a few examples; all of them leave a bit to be desired) i think you should take your own advice and open up a little more to those who think differently from you. most liberals do not fear god. i do not fear god, i am agnostic but still try to participate in my jewish community. what i fear is that the religious right, which is currently in power, will slowly remove my freedoms and attempt to impose their beliefs on me. of course, this is a little ridiculous, but it is becoming mroe and more prevalent as time progresses. just as you were insulted by your child’s teacher yelling at him for expressing his beliefs, i am insulted when others try to impose theirs on me: e.g. the recent attempts to ban homosexual marraige and abortion, the patriot act, and those who accuse me of being unpatriotic because i do not support the war in iraq.

i’d like to finish with two quotes…
�€œStoop and you’ll be stepped on; stand tall and you’ll be shot at.�€ �€“ Carlos A. Urbizo
�€œAgainst stupidity the gods themselves contend in vain.�€ �€“ Friedrich von Schiller

I meant empirical evidence, not emperial. I always get those two mixed up!

judye

I couldn’t agree more. My husband went thru the same thing. Only in his public school, (If you can believe it) they actually took the entire class out of school, walked 2 blocks to a church and had church service for the kids, as a real class. He studied the Bible, and had to memorize verses and listen to Sunday School Stories. I was appauled when I hear this. I have never pushed my faith on him. But, finally after 30 years of talking about everything under the sun, we can finally talk about The Bible. And, I guess
that he isn’t an an Agnostic after all. (As he said he was, when we met). He’s actually a better “Christian” than I am. :-)

AND YES JUDYE, YOUR POST HAS EVERYTHING TO DO WITH RELIGIOUS FREE SPEECH, IN A SECULAR ENVIORNMENT (the public schools).

Ilsa

I don’t know what the “liberal mantras” were, but if they had anything to do
with that teachers belief in “God”, (or unbelief in God), it had no place in the classroom. And, if it had to to with his secular beliefs or his political beliefs, I would hope that he would have kept those beliefs to himself too.

BillS

“What was outlawed was safe abortions. Another example of a Religion interfering in what is supposed to be a secular state.”

Here here, I’ll drink to that. Just another reason why politics and God don’t mix. Good friends don’t let other friends, (vote with a Bible).

Right-of-way

The teacher over-reacted, and the Principle is a jerk. No one has a right to stiffle another persons “opinion”. Your child was not engaged in worship or a public display of worship. He was stateing his opinion. And that, the last time I checked, was protected under the Constitution.

You say, “The more you (liberals) explain your ideologies, the more popular conservatism gets.” I’d like to say that everytime one of you Conservatives opens his/her mouth to defend one of your own in this Administration, or your Conservative ideals, we liberals couldn’t ask for a better spokesperson for our campaign. THANK YOU!

Rodney Brown

Thanks for the link, i’ll look it up

Ilsa

Children do not steal cookies because they are wicked. They just take cookies because they like them. Weather you believe in God of not, it’s not that difficult to make your children aware of other people’s feelings, and how to get along with others. Nor, is it that difficult to teach your children their limits, or what is good for them to eat, or not to eat.

As far as the law punishing people for breeches in “moral” behavior. I do hope that it’s only behavior that harms or takes advantage of others. There are a lot of so called “immoral” behaviors that some Christians would like to have punished by our civil laws. I hope and pray that those Christians never get the job done. I hope that what ever a person does with their sex, how they have sex, with whom they have sex, and with respect to their gender, never gets legislated into civil law. As long as they do not engage in illegal sex with a minor, or have unconsentual sex, I think that the “Church” should pretty much stay out of sex, (in the secular arena).

Novenge

You are absolutely right! Next time they start on you, over your coffee break, you should just break into a wiccka chant and get out your book on the theory of evolution. That will either shut them up, or get them as irratated as you are. Either way, fair’s fair, right? :-)

And, don’t tell them you’re Jesus, it’ll just incourage them. That’ll really rile them up. Tell them your Santa Clause. Hey, he’s a secular kind of guy that is jolly and goes around doing good things and brings gifts. Most Christians believe in Santa and the Easter Bunny, and they believe that they are in the Bible. So, just say your “Santa” and they will think you’re one of them.

And, I have a great idea for you for Morman repellant. Get some yellow police type tape and string it all around your front door. Draw a chalk outline of a “body” and scatter some copies of the Watch Tower around. I think that they will get the point!

Griper

It’s not that praying in public should not be allowed. It’s just that praying should remain a private act. We all know that it’s rude to talk on a cell phone in a movie theatre. Well talking to God should be a private conversation too. I don’t go around showing pictures of my husband an my sex life in public. Well, my relationship with God is my own private business too. Others would be offended by seeing graphic photos (I know my husband would be). Then why is it a problem with some Christians to practice their religion in private? (You can pray in your head you know?) Do you really want religious freedom? Or, are you just trying to make others think that you are a better person. Showing God off in public, like that new sweater or car, won’t get you any points in heaven. And, if you want to gain respect from others, you’ve missed the mark. Some of us know enough about God and the Bible to be offended. And, you won’t convert those who don’t believe in God to your point of view. All you ARE going to do is to make a “show” of yourself. And, it’s not impressing anyone. God, or man.

And, I would disagree with you. You said “prayers aloud requires the tolerence of those around us”. I would change that to: Prayers spoken in silence are heard by God, while prayers spoken aloud require patience and tolerance from others and from God.

—You guys crack me up————ILSA, I specifically left out the word Faith, for a very good reason. You can spin and avoid the direct question if you like. I am sure you are not interested, if you are go to your nearest Encyclopedia an check under Wars OF Religion, the no Spin Book!

Tim
What’s wrong with Berry Goldwater anyway? :-) Just kidding.

JayJay Matthew 6:5

As a Christian, I appreciate your comments. I’ve been saying that for years. I think as far as Christians and prayers in public goes? There are some Christians that, like other people, (Christian or Non), are just not happy until they irratate everyone else. And, I think it’s, on the part of some so called “Christian’s”, a dogma that they think it’s their job to be “out there winning souls”. (As if God couldn’t do THAT, without them.)

I too would love another name for “normal” Christians, those of us that don’t make a habit of trying to beat everyone we see over the head with a Bible of a cross. How about the SBG (Silent Believers of God)? We could know Biblical truths, but keep them to ourselves. You know, have the courtesy to let others find those truths for themselves? That way “The Truth” would be more relivent to our own lives. And, so much more meaningful because we found them for ourselves.

(However, you do have some of your facts wrong. Jesus never broke any of the Commandments. The Church elders accused him of it, but he didn’t. He did say, “love your enemys” and not to put out their eyes. But there is a big difference in teaching Love and teaching Justice. Sometimes one is exclusive of the other. And, you are right, Jesus never mentioned the first 4 Commandments. But, he didn’t mention the last 6 either. He summed them all up in just 2. These two summed up all 10 Commandments found in Exodus. He did not rebuke the OT or the “Law”, but rather he came to fulfilled it.)

You had some questions about Jesus being tempted by Satan. I’ll try to be brief. 1st we are a dule personality. The body and the spirit. God is a Trilogy. Body, Spirit, and the Devine. Christ was flesh, and so could be tempted. But, he was with God, and was God from the beginning. Read Gen.1:1. Christ is refered to here as “the Word”. Just as before the Creation, he was an Angel. As to how can Satan tempt God? The whole premis of the book of Job is built on just that. And, remember that Jesus was God made manifest (flesh), and he walked among us. So, therefore he could be tempted just like any of us. Else, he would not have been able to die on the cross, he could have just jumped down and walked away. Why did he allow himself to be tempted? Because he came to fulfill the Law, and he came to show us what kind of live to lead.

There is no discrepency in these two accounts comming from different angles. Matthew was maticulous as he saw things in black and white, as any accountant or bookkeeper would. John’s book comes from a spiritual angle. I’m afraid that John, by by-passing some of the facts, has committed the sin of omission. (I don’t think it was deliberate, just that he might not have found it important or he found that part of the missing time-line not relivent to the rest of his text). There are a lot of gaps in the Gospels about Jesus’s life between 9 and 30 too. But, that doesn’t mean anything either.

PlayNice— A master piece, good job well done.

Jesus never broke any of the Commandments. The Church elders accused him of it, but he didn�€™t.

PlayNice,

When the Pharisees accuse Jesus of breaking the Sabbath, he does not deny it, but instead changes the commandment to that you may do good on the Sabbath. I think we would agree that Jesus wants us to do good everyday, not just the Sabbath.

And, you are right, Jesus never mentioned the first 4 Commandments. But, he didn’t mention the last 6 either.

Actually, Jesus does mention the last 6 commandments in Matthew 19:16-19:

• Now a man came up to Jesus and asked, “Teacher, what good thing must I do to get eternal life?”

  “Why do you ask me about what is good?” Jesus replied. “There is only One who is good. If you want to enter life, obey the commandments.”

  “Which ones?” the man inquired.

  Jesus replied, ” ‘Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not give false testimony, honor your father and mother,’ and ‘love your neighbor as yourself.’

He drops the first four commandments and changes the 10th, from do not covet your neighbor’s things to Love your neighbor as yourself.

John’s book comes from a spiritual angle. I’m afraid that John, by by-passing some of the facts, has committed the sin of omission. (I don�€™t think it was deliberate, just that he might not have found it important or he found that part of the missing time-line not relivent to the rest of his text). There are a lot of gaps in the Gospels about Jesus�€™s life between 9 and 30 too. But, that doesn�€™t mean anything either.

That was a pretty big omission. I would think that Jesus being tempted by Satan would be a pretty big deal. It’s hard to believe that John would think it not important enough to mention. John says the John the Baptist saw Jesus the next day after his baptism, and that the day after that he left for Galilee. The timeline is not missing, there is no gap in John between the time that Jesus was Baptised and the time that he spends 40 days and nights in the desert being tempted by the devil in Matthew. The timeline simply contains a different account of what happened during that time. This is not simply an omission, one of these accounts is inacurate.

I said nothing about conservatives or liberals. Yet some of you cannot resist thinking in terms of a liberal/conservative standoff.

There is nothing liberal about free speech. There is nothing conservative about free speech. It’s in the Bill of Rights.

Jack: Abortion occurs at all economic and social levels. It has to do with circumstances, not genetics. There may be more economic pressure on the poor,just one reason anyone concerned about it should support a minimum wage increase. There are also social pressurs that effect the middle classes and the wealthy also. It should be noted that the wealthy have always had access to safe abortion for their daughters and mistresses,an “understanding “doctor or a trip to Europe etc. Can not recall the name but I read an antropoligist that was concerned that with the availability of family planning we are in danger of naturally selecting for the stupid,selfish and lazy.

Jay

No, Jesus never broke any of God’s commandments. (Or, the Laws of Man). HE is the perfect Lamb, without sin, without blimish, The Christ.

Mark 2: 26 Now he went unto the house of God in the days of Abiathar the high priest, and did eat the shewbread (holy bread), which is not lawful to eat but for the priests, and gave also unto them which were with him.

Mark 2: 27 And he said unto them, The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath:

Mark 2: 28 Therefore, the Son of man is Lord also of the Sabbath.

I see no change here. And this thread, and similar threads of this run all through the NT. He was honoring the Sabbath, for if God is Lord over us all, is not Christ (The Son of God) Lord also over the Sabbath?

Matthew 5;19 “Whoso ever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven…

Matthew 5: 18 “For Verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.”

John 15: 10 “If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father’s commandments, and abide in his love.”

Just because he didn’t list them all, or he listed some, but not others, does not mean that he, in his life, and by his words or actions, broke any of God’s commandments, or incouraged others to break them. The first four (Ecodus) contain instructions on how we are to love God. The last 6 tell us how to love and get along with our fellow man.

But, in these two commandments, are embodied all of the ten commandments. “Ye are to love your neighbor as thyself, and Love the Lord thy God, with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind”. (Sorry, can not find the ref. text).

God brought us the “Law” and the penalty for breaking it. Christ brought us the “Spirit of the Law” (the interpretation), the heart of the Law. And, Christ brought us Redemption. (A way to be forgiven).

*****************************

I am really not concerned with the time line at all. There seams to be many places in the 4 Gospels where I’ve tried for years to get them to mesh or to line up. It’s just impossiable. Matthew starts with Jesus birth, I’m not sure that Mark mentions it at all. Many years ago I tried reading the Gospels and putting them together in a coheasive time line. I eventually gave up.

At a crime you can have 4 witnesses. They can all see the same thing, yet you can get 4 distinctly different stories. But, basically they will all be the same. (Hopefully, in essence.) The principle is the same, basically “the place was robbed”. The particulars do not change that fact.

I don’t think that it is really important. If Mark doesn’t have the story of christ’s birth, does that mean that Mark doesn’t think Christ was born? I doubt it. Jesus came to fulfill the Law, and the words, and foretelling of the Prophets. He came to give us the true interpretation of the law, the “spirit” of the law. (It’s not enough to not kill your brother, you shouldn’t wish him dead either.) The NT does not negate the OLD. Nothing has changed but the “penalty phase”. For:

God is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow.

BillS

Abortion occurs in all groups but it is not randomly distributed. I don’t think it is genetic, but it certainly is behavior based. People who would have mulitiple abortions probably should and I hope not perpetuate their type.

No, Jesus never broke any of God�€™s commandments. (Or, the Laws of Man). HE is the perfect Lamb, without sin, without blimish, The Christ.

PlayNice,

You say that Jesus never broke one of God’s commandments, but what are God’s commandments? According to Jesus God’s commandment is Love, and love fullfills all the law. ~Romans 13:8-10

So whose laws are those listed in the OT, that call for death? Whose laws are those that have absolutly nothing to do with love? It all comes down to Jesus’ purpose, which was to save us, but save us from whom?

1John 3:8 He who does what is sinful is of the devil, because the devil has been sinning from the beginning. The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the devil’s work.

Who is the devil?

• Ye do the deeds of your father. Then said they to him, We be not born of fornication; we have one Father, even God.

  Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me. Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word. Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it. ~John 8:41-44

Jesus said this to the teachers of the law and the Pharisees. Who were the Pharisees? The Pharisees along with the Scribes were responsible for the contents of the Old Testement. What did Jesus say about the teachers of the law and the Pharisees?

• “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You shut the kingdom of heaven in men’s faces. You yourselves do not enter, nor will you let those enter who are trying to.

  “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You travel over land and sea to win a single convert, and when he becomes one, you make him twice as much a son of hell as you are.

  “Woe to you, blind guides! You say, ‘If anyone swears by the temple, it means nothing; but if anyone swears by the gold of the temple, he is bound by his oath.’ You blind fools! Which is greater: the gold, or the temple that makes the gold sacred? You also say, ‘If anyone swears by the altar, it means nothing; but if anyone swears by the gift on it, he is bound by his oath.’ You blind men! Which is greater: the gift, or the altar that makes the gift sacred? Therefore, he who swears by the altar swears by it and by everything on it. And he who swears by the temple swears by it and by the one who dwells in it. And he who swears by heaven swears by God’s throne and by the one who sits on it.

  “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices�€”mint, dill and cummin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law�€”justice, mercy and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former. You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel.

  “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You clean the outside of the cup and dish, but inside they are full of greed and self-indulgence. Blind Pharisee! First clean the inside of the cup and dish, and then the outside also will be clean.

  “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of dead men’s bones and everything unclean. In the same way, on the outside you appear to people as righteous but on the inside you are full of hypocrisy and wickedness.

  “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You build tombs for the prophets and decorate the graves of the righteous. And you say, ‘If we had lived in the days of our forefathers, we would not have taken part with them in shedding the blood of the prophets.’ So you testify against yourselves that you are the descendants of those who murdered the prophets. Fill up, then, the measure of the sin of your forefathers!

  “You snakes! You brood of vipers! How will you escape being condemned to hell? Therefore I am sending you prophets and wise men and teachers. Some of them you will kill and crucify; others you will flog in your synagogues and pursue from town to town. And so upon you will come all the righteous blood that has been shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah son of Berekiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar. I tell you the truth, all this will come upon this generation.

Jesus said this about those responsible for teaching and preserving the OT? Ye are of your father the devil? Could it be that Jehovah is not who he claims to be? Is it possible that there are two different forces being talked about in the OT, that over time became melded into one?

Ye shall know them by their fruits.

JayJay

Awesome! Don’t stop. I’m getting quite an education.

DAVID: Thank you so much for the very nice compliment.

JAY:

Wow, you don’t make it easy, do you? Where to start? I cann’t explain the whole Bible here. But, I’ll try to answer some of your questions.

1st, the Bible quotes that I posted last, are from Jesus words, and he said that he had “kept my Father�€™s commandments”. Jesus also said that not, “one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled”. I really tend to believe this. That Jesus had not broken any of God’s commandments. And, that Jesus was quite clear that no law in no wise was “done away with”, not till “all be fulfilled”. (End of Days)

Now, what does this mean?

God’s commandments: Exodus 20: v1-17 These are “God’s Commandments”, written by the finger of God. And, you are right, God’s Commandments ARE love. Just as we love our children and provide guidelines for them to follow. These guides are not out of hate, but out of love. Rules to make our life easier, happier, “rules to live by” so that man can find peace, with God and his neighbor. If someone loves God, and truly loves his neighbor as he does himself, that love does fullfill all the requiorments of “the law”. (He is saved already).

God’s laws are laws of love for us to live by, to help us have a better relationship with God, and our fellow man. They are also laws of instruction. How to love and show devotion to God, (the first 4) how to be a better neighbor and love your fellow man, (the last 6). They are not really restrictive, but rather liberating. By following these laws, we are free of guilt, pride, greed, and yes “sin”. The wages of sin is death. Now it would take a book to talk about what is ment by “death”. But the standard answer is similar to “a seperation from God”. (Your neighbor isn’t going to like you very much, when you abuse him/her, and neither is God). If you want it to mean “death” in the true Christian sense, fine, just remember that Christ paid the price for your “sin” (death), already. So, your situation is not hopeless, if you “Repent”, and turn from your ways, to God’s ways.

God’s Law: Exodus 20: 1-17 THE 10 COMMANDMENTS (Laws of love, to teach us how to get alone with God and our fellow man.

Jesus Commandment: John 15:12 “This is my commandment, that ye love one another as I have loved you”. (Also a law of love).

Civil Laws: Written by Moses and given to the Jewish People. Leviticus, (pretty much the whole book). Plus the Talmud, a inturpretation by church fathers of Leviticus. Also, refered to in the NT as, “in vain you worship me, following “traditions of men”. The church Elders, the Priests of the Jewish Church (Pharasees), and the church lawyers, and writers of the “law” (the Scribes). (Not unlike some of our Church leaders and teachers of today. And, I don’t have to tell you how Jesus felt about them). The scribes and the pharasees were in charge of the civil/man/civil, man-made laws. These ARE the law of “Moses”, because they were not written by the hand (finger) “of God”.

*The 10 Commandments were never done away with by the NT. If you ask any Christian today, Did Jesus do away with God’s laws? He will say, “Yes”. Then you will ask, then you don’t follow the 10 commandments? He will say, “No, we are living under grace not the law”. You say, You day OK, then which commandments are “ok” to break? He will be hard pressed to give you a answer. He might say “none” or he might not even know them.

Q&A:
Q: What are God’s commandments?
A: The 10 Commandments
Q: Which OT laws call for death?
A: The 10 Commadments.
Q: Whose laws in the OT have nothing to do with love”?
A: Moses - ie. Lev. - the Jewish tradition laws. (civil laws)
Q: Who are we to be ‘saved” from?
A: Ourselves.
Q: Who is the devil?
A: Satan, Lucifer, that old “Dragon”, he loves to see us in trouble
(In sin), because that makes us unhappy and seperated from
God.
Q: John 8:41-44? “If God were your Father, ye would love me”..
A: Not hard to understand. God’s children know him, just as God
knows his own children. And, not everyone that says, “I am of
God, (Christian) is. If these men were of God, surely God’s Son
would know his own siblings. But, they were of the old serpent
and Jesus, knew them not.

Scribes and Pharisees:

Jesus refered to the men of the OT as Prophets, or Patriarchs. He refered to the church leaders of his time as “Scribes and Pharisees”. Things that Jesus said about the “Pharisees”. (“Scribes”)

A) “You shut the kingdom of heaven..” Since Moses wrote the Lev. laws, the church elders had hundreds of years to add to them to make them so complicated that unless you were a church scholar, you couldn’t understand them. Let alone have time to do them all.

B) (I have not heard that one, but I’ll try). …”make him as much a son of hell as you are”. The church had evolved as an institution. A money making institution. Remember what Jesus did to the “Money-changers” in the temple? I think the church, in Jesus’ time, was not unlike the church of today. Much more concerned with the wealth and business of the church, than in providing God’s love and solice to HIS people.

C) (Ok, I guess I didn’t do too badly on “B”.) “..He who swears by heaven swears by god’s throne and by the one who sits on it”. The Church made it’s self more important (greater, more authority) than God. The money of the church gave it power, while the power of the spirit of the church (God) was forgotten. The sacrifice or gifts of man were to be made to the church, and God was left wanting. (Man, this is starting to feel sooo familiar!)

D) “You give a 10th of your spices…But, you have neglected the law, justice, mercy and faithfulness.” (Man, I don’t even have to explain this one! The church hasn’t changed much in 2,000 years has it?)

E) “..You clean the outside of the cup and dish…” You are rotten to the core. You clean the outside but leave the inside dirty (in sin). What is sin? Self indulgence, and greed. Our modern churches look quite nice on the outside too. But, scratch the surface, and you won’t find a “Godly” sight, not one of love, forgivness, self sacrifice, and tolerance.

F) …”whitewashed tombs”. (Same as “E”) The church looked beautiful on the outside, and righteous, be on the inside are “dead bones”, hypocrisy and wickedness. Dang, I don’t know about you, but I’m getting pretty sick of Jesus trashing our modern day Christian Churches.

G) Jesus foretells the blood of the prophets and wise men (the deciples) to come upon the church’s hands..”upon this generation”. (In this time).

No, those he spoke of were not of the “OT”, but it was an enditement for the church of his day.

“Ye are of your father the devil”. These men of the church, who claimed to be “of God”, were not of God, but of the old deciever, the devil.

How do we know today if those that claim to have God’s “Word’ are real? The same way Christ advised us. “By their fruits, ye shall know them”. Just as God knows each and every one of us, and just as we will know Him, when we see Him, (or any manifstation of Him).

For it is imposiable for God to lie…”If it were not true, I would have told you”. And, it is impossiable for Satan to be honest in his dealings with us. “For he was a lier from the beginning”.

Build not up your treasures in the golden temples, but give your treasures freely to all that seek HIM. And, fill your storehouses with the love of the Lord. (Just my paraphrase, sorry)

Jay,
You mean my argument is only as good as a 1st or 2nd century Roman theologian? (kidding)

I think there is a good argument for the removal of the OT based primarily on the attitudes of the Torah itself. It is a book about the jews exclusively as it pertains, with stories of jewish history, all in the written language of the Jews. The god of the OT is certainly different from Jesus’ “The father” which has a “holy spirit” component which makes it far different from YHVH. The question is of Jesus’ affiliation to Judaism, was it genuine orthodoxy? Certainly not. Mere liberal revisionism with new liberties? Or constitutionally a whole new foundational form that should take nothing from the Torah with exception to what it attempts to connect to Judaically to either explain concepts or prop its messiah-hood up on. I was raised essentially non-churchgoing so your knowledge of this scripturally would be better than mine. I wouldn’t know where to start or what to read to justify the Torah’s release from Christian doctrine. The Jews are so used in all of this and without them even present in their own discussion about their own books.

Playnice,
I also have a few Christian Fundie relatives too, what’s the use they’ll eventually get in but they haven’t heard that I’m Jesus yet. I expect any of them would smile nervously and slowly back out of the room very quietly on that cue. If I said I was Santa they would set up an exorcism and start pitching holywater. And the chalk outline idea—sheer genius! Bravo!

Jack,
I know what evolution is. I said “yes—in a round about way”.

Novenge
Prayer shouldn’t be any really big to-do at all. No more than you or me talking to each other. Prayer is man talking to his God.
One thing I’ve never understood is folks talk to each other in everyday language. But listen to some folks pray in Church and they use a lot of thees, thous, and thines. Like they think maybe God don’t understand common everyday English or something? Or are they making a big to-do over it?

JayJay
Your right, you have the freedom to go downtown Detroit, Atlanta, Chicago, or any other place and shout racial slurs. And you also have the right to suffer the consequences of it.
If I was to go out on the street corner and pray at the top of my lungs I don’t think anyone would slug me, then again someone might. Either way I’m going to suffer some consequences for doing it.

PLay nice,

The Bible doesn’t actually call him Lucifer? Isn’t that an abberation on Goddess Diana who was said to divide the night—whatever that meant. My knowledge is more or less scattergories over here.

It’s also claimed that it’s basis is on the Planet Venus—the morning star.

AS I see it there are first alot of tacky things to get rid of before propping it up. Such as the rising out of their graves stuff (hoo boy) or Mary floating on up to heaven like a hotair baloon. The devil is a definitely rediculous esoteric ball of weirdness. Why do we protect such books when they are frought with such litanous rediculous anomalies? All these things make the divine birth look remotely plausible in comparison. Christians literally did teach that people would come out of their graves—is that not bonkers?

Satan a fallen angel from the story of Job that no one has heard hyde nor hair of since its writing, popping up in front of Jesus over a fourty day fast which would have made him see just about anything out there.

My point is that we may be arguing over an icon and a faith that gives hope instead of questioning what was really quite “off” about all of it.

All staking claim to Jesus and how backwards the churches are but like, what about heaven coming down like a tablecloth basically squashing things, that’s pretty backwards too. I know a good deal is allegorical but it has some serious wackiness to it that people excuse out of wanting that hope.

I mean I find it somewhat reverous or enchanting too but so do I find the Arthurian quests, Legend of Rollo or even Starwars to have the same qualities (not all Star Wars—egad). But as we search to find bemusings to fill the gap in knowledge between life and death the unknowable should we not get into the questions of the whole “what the hell did you say you did?” factor before we defend the roost from the liturgical invaders within who just don’t get it? we may not get it either.

I think it just says the word “love” four thousand times and we are to some extent blinded by it. Just a sacreligious couple o’ thoughts.

PlayNice,

I think we are closer to being on the same page. I do not disagree with your last post. The law of the OT is made up of three parts, the law of God, the law of Moses (Matt 19:8), and the laws of Tradition (Matt 15:4-9).

Further there is a division within the laws of God. The laws that Jesus came to fulfill and perfect with love (Matt 5:17), the laws which go against the nature of The Father (an eye for an eye, persue your enemies, etc.) which Jesus abolished (Ephesians 2:15). And sybolic laws, such as offerings and sacrifices, which were abolished in their old literal sense, but continue in their new symbolic meanings (1 Corinthians 5:7-8, Romans 7:6).

The law is really a secondary concern of mine though, my main concern with the OT is who is Jehovah?

Jesus says this in Matthew 12:

• “But when the Pharisees heard it, they said, This fellow doth not cast out devils, but by Beelzebub the prince of the devils.

And Jesus knew their thoughts, and said unto them, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand: And if Satan cast out Satan, he is divided against himself; how shall then his kingdom stand?”

I would assume that those laws also apply to God. How could a God of Pure Love be divided against himself and stand? How could a God of Pure Love order mass genocide and things like this:

• Samaria shall become desolate; for she hath rebelled against her God: they shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up. ~Hosea 13:16

God never ordered such attrocities. He couldn’t, they go against his nature.

Novenge—Are these words from memory or are they from pages in front of you? I guess I am amazed by what I see on these last few posts I just don’t remember so much information cumming at me in down to earth explanation’s am speechless! great job. Put it in Book form.

Ron Brown,

I guess it’s a matter of what you do with your to-do. I don’t know, it’s not my place to judge someone else’s faith. If it brings out their willingness to bear forth good in the world and help those around them who need it—I say keep up one’s own big to-dos. I have no problem with other people’s faiths, I’ve had my own religious excursions too but strangely few big to-dos or willingness to do a to-do. I think I always kept it personal not postumous. Not that I have anything against a to-do, maybe I need some.

—Jay jay an PlayNice It’s nice to hear your views on this subject different than cumming from some dark robed person. Besides, the holy spirit must have given the spinmeisters the boot, long enough to get the message out. Enjoyed the post. DAVID

David,
Thanks for the compliment, I’m just pitching in a few thoughts just being genuinely annoying.

Jay Jay,

I concur it’s obviously another God persona, is there case on Jesus though that draws that division? By that I mean Jesus giving some sense of what he is in terms of contrast to the Jewish orthodoxy other than purportedly their owner (Messiah). I think that’s what keeps it attached is that Jesus draws no distinctual lines to it but the claim being staked that he was messiah. So if he is the Jewish “messiah” and is in connection to the Torah on that basis, the OT stays?

If it can be proved that Jesus wanted to take over Judaism—he owns it—it is attached. I mean he wanted the temple brought down for one. He criticized the whole system and change the entire direction of it. Even though it is a different “God persona” he wanted to take it over which is why the messiah claims were made.

I mean for all intents and purposes he could have said he was Orpheus, that man was on a mission to take over the temple and bring down its walls. this might be ownership or it could be grounds for dismissal of the OT somewhat being that he wanted to change it.

That is such a difficult question due to all the contradictions.

Novenge

Well said. I know, there is a lot of “off” about it. Just look at the Bible in terms of looking at Nostradamus’ work. I mean seriously look at that stuff! Some people just see a lot of jibberish, that could well apply to anything, and they like devine future predictions out of that stuff. I mean, it could come true? They say some of it has come about. But who could tell? It’s so obscure, it could “mean” anything.

Now take Nostradamus and say it was written by over 100 people. Mind blowing ain’t it? You got real wackiness there!. Now you got over 100 people going looney-tune, but over many centuries, even millinia. Wow! That’s a lot of garbage to sift through to try to come up with a little bit of “truth”. Maybe this might go a long way to explain why some so called
“Christians” are much “whackier” than others.

Now, mix in some self serving “Priest” or Rabbi, who’s only mission according to him is to “be a holy man and preach God’s word”, while all the while the world/Satan is tugging on him to do the “Churches Work”, which explained properly in their mind, isn’t to “feed the people”, but to get as much money in the cauffers as possiable?

Now, you got a really whacked up, screwy mess. You know? Wouldn’t it have been much better if Jesus would have just come down and talked to us each personally to straighten us out? No parlor games where one tells one and they tell another and so on. I mean, just come on down and tell me the skinny!

You know, if I ever get there???? I’m gonna put that in the suggestion box….. for next time! “Come for a visit, don’t give us a book”. A book with all these contradictions, is just too complicated for us to follow.

Maybe it’s because it’s a book that is ment to be read by the heart, and not the head. And, sence we each have a different heart/spirit, we see it in different ways. We pick out of it our own special brand of “truth” (Or, maybe, just maybe, …some of us are just good at heart - naturally, and some of us are just…. well, A-holes!)

Jay

First off I want to say, no matter what transpires from here, that I have really enjoyed our conversation. THANK YOU! Also, I want to tell you that I am stateing what I know to be “the truth” and in no wise should be confused with what you know to be “the truth”. And, it’s not for anyone to have a cornerstone on the truth. The truth for you, is what YOU KNOW, it to be. Here’s my philosophy:

The truth is like the wise man from an Eastern Philosophy once said:

“The truth is like?
The TRUTH, is like this:
Those that say “the truth”, don’t know the truth, and those that know the truth, can’t say the truth.”

So thank you for letting me share My Truth.

Your right, a God of “Love” could not have ordered such attrocities. However, it would not be unusual for a “church” to do many attrocities in the Name of God. Heck, history teaches us that.

(Oral Roberts speaks to God, and God puts a 12 foot statue of Jesus in his front yard, (for crips sake), I talk to God (in my prayers), and HE’s never given me a 12’ Jesus).

But, also remember, God is also a God of Justice as well as love. Remember the flood? But, who is to say that the attrocities were from God? From the ancient writers of the Bible that were human with human error or misunderstandings? Who is going to say that these were the “hand of God” ie, flood, or the pilar of salt thing, or of man’s evil inturpertation of God? Who is to say if these things were “just”?

“Who is a man, that he can “judge” God?”

Yes there is a stark difference in the OT vs the NT. There is a difference in the God of the old, and the Jesus in the new.

I would like to take time to go over your two points and discuss them at length. But, time is running short for me as it is Monday morning and I have to go now. With a day of thought, I will post again tonight.
:-)

Right-of-way…

Your story about your kid in school and the rainbow comment is bogus. I’ve read the same madeup story in countless rightwing publications and blogs. You read about it somewhere else, where it was also a lie, and then rewrote it on this blog to push your agenda. This is true of countless stories about PC gone amoke, the vast majority are misrepresentations or made up stories. Nice try though.

Tom

I, for the first time agree with the man, I felt good about his answers concerning free speech.

Islam is the world�€™s most violent bloodthirsty religion ever formed…. -Novenge at June 24, 2006 09:29 PM

Did you forget the brutatlity of the Ordeals during the Inquisition? The Inquisition was an expression of Christian Biblical beliefs much like the Muslims are expressing their faith. Their brutality will be dealt with in a way they cannot predict because they are blinded by the belief that they have God on their side.

This is the modern age and they need to accept it or we will all lose many, many lives and they will find out if those virgins are there or not.